A NEW WORLD AGENDA: STOP THE GENOCIDE!

Here is the keynote of Helga Zepp-LaRouche to the ICLC/Schiller Institute annual Presidents' Day conference on Feb. 19, 2005. She was introduced, as always, by Amelia Boynton Robinson, who turned the podium over to LaRouche Youth Movement activist Erin Smith. Helga's presentation was entitled: "It's Time To Put Out the Flames of the Thirty Years War: Let's Create a Beautiful Mankind!"

I think everybody is awareeverybody in this room and people in Los Angeles, and elsewhere watching this on the internetthat we are at a point in history, where the outcome of this historical moment will be decided, to a very large extent, by what is happening inside the United States. The great destiny of mankind, as my favorite poet Schiller would have said, is being decided in this country. And you, you all personally sitting here in the audience, and people watching on the internet, and elsewhere in the country, and the impact you have in changing the American population, away from the present course of action of the government, is the absolute key. It's the key, if we will see in the coming period, worldwide chaos, following the crash of the financial system, which we are absolutely on the verge of, and the rapid descent into global asymmetric nuclear warfare. And, as I will go through in the beginning of my presentation, we are already sitting on a volcano which indeed could erupt at any moment into a global nuclear war, plunging the world into a Dark Age.

This is the one option. But, I think we are actually quite optimistic, that through our deeds and through our intervention, we will realize the other alternative, which is what LoÃõpez Portillo a couple of years ago said, that the world is now listening more and more "to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche." And it is about time that the Americans are "listening to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche," because internationally, I can assure you, the whole world looks at Lyn as the hope to turn the situation in the United States. And there's nobody of any significant stature in the world, who has any doubt that it is Lyn's personal leadership which has catalyzed the present opposition to the war drive, and the drive for fascism inside the United States.

Now, therefore, to say it in the beginning, I'm very optimistic that we can accomplish the positive solutions which Lyn has been campaigning for, for the last 30, if not 45-50 years: namely, a just new world economic order, a New Bretton Woods system, and global reconstruction. And Lyn has clearly defined that the way to do this, is to stop the privatization of Social Security through a bipartisan alliance inside the United States, which is becoming more and more visible, that a large section of the Republican Party does not agree with the neo-con domestic policy, which is robbing the poor of their last penny, and foreign policy, which is an imperial, unilateral policy; but, who agree that the American Constitution and the American Declaration of Independence is the true identity of the United States.

Now, therefore, what we have to accomplish, fundamentally, in this period, is to go back to the real purpose of America in history: The ideas of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.

So, the issues at stake, and this is something you all have been thinking about, and I want you to afresh make your personal view and your personal relation to what is at stakenamely, the destiny of mankind, which depends entirely on our ability to mobilize and change the American people, away from the present course, back to its origins.

Now, as Lyn said recently, the new Thirty Years' War already is pretty advanced. This Thirty Years' War may have started with the vote in Florida in January 2001; it may have started with the Sept. 11 events; it may have started with the attack on Afghanistan; it for sure continued in Afghanistan, which is now completely in a catastrophic situation under the control of the drug warlords.

It continued with the war against Iraq, which, as you know, is completely out of control: 1,400 American soldiers, minimum, have died. Many, many more have been wounded, and are shipped back in the most despicable way, back to the United States, not being treated better than human cattle (which is a scandal all by itself). The situation in Iraq, being completely out of control. The separation and division of the country is threatening to occur, which would immediately engulf the region into more wars, between Turkey-Kurdistan, the new possibility of a Kurdistan, and so forth.

But now, we have, with the new assassination with the former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri of Lebanon, a situation where a new bomb has been thrown. A journalist with the name of Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent, that anyone setting out to murder Hariri would know how this could reopen all the fissures of the civil war which lasted from 1975 to 1990. And this could, in the short term, given the fact that now Syria is being beaten up by the administration, by the Israelis, it could lead in the short term to a new foreign policy crisis or even a new war.

And, the world is not buying this, but for example, on Tuesday, Radio France Internationale, which is the radio of record for the Quai d'Orsay (for the Foreign Office in France), said that there are three suspects which could have done that. Naturally, the most obvious would be Syria, but, especially because it is the most obvious, it is not the most likely and credible, because Syria has everything to lose. It is risking a full-fledged confrontation with Washington. It is risking to lose support from Saudi Arabia, on which Syria economically and otherwise completely depends, and therefore, it would be suicide for Syria to do this, and therefore it would not make sense.

Then, one day later, the same radio had their chief editor speakingagain, speaking for the French Foreign Ministrythat the danger now, is that Lebanon is falling into chaos, and what is really going on, and then they cite a document from 1982, which was at that point published by a high Israeli Foreign Ministry official with the name Oded Yinon, which was basically was a plan for the decomposition of Lebanon into five provinces, which would then be a model for Egypt, Syria, Iraq, the entire Arab Peninsula. And then, this program said that this is indeed the plan, the background for what is happening in Lebanon right now, and it is the main objective of Israel. And it happens to be exactly the same, what a so-called U.S. Committee a Free Lebanonwhich has such known culprits like Perle and others in itis basically pushing: namely the Operation Clean Break, (which was the neo-con answer to the Oslo efforts by President Clinton) to basically guarantee the security of Israel, by having regime change of all the governments in the region. And, as one well-placed source in Europe told us, this indeed converges, this Israeli plan to dismantle Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and so forth, with the Bush Administration policy for regime change.

Now, the Syria thing is very acute, and very dangerous: Because the Bush Administration realizes that their plans to move for regime change in Iran, are not so easy, given the fact that the entire European Union is in very successful diplomatic negotiations in Geneva; and also, Russia, in the form of President Putin, who just met the head of [Iran's] National Security Council Rowhani in Moscow, is backing up Iran completely, and Putin said that Russia trusts that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and that Russia fully intends to continue the nuclear cooperation with Iran. So, that puts the stakes immediately a little bit higher, for those people who want to have regime change in Iran. It doesn't put it out of question. And, also the North Korea situation is not so easy, as I will mention in a second. So therefore, Syria is really a target of opportunity.

Now, if you look at the total picture: Iraq, you have a situation where many people have compared it to what was the horror-show of Vietnam. And you can be sure that all the soldiers who are coming back, having gone through traumatic experiences in a war, which doesn't make any sense, which was based on lies, on manipulation, and now, which is regarded by the Iraqi people as an aggressive occupying force.

And people are not well-taken care of. You know, there are all these scandals nowno armored vehicles, and other things missing. But mostly, psychologically, people will go through traumatic experiences. And then they come back, and they're not celebrated as war heroes, but they're shuffled away. They're not treated well. If they happened to be wounded and have to go to the hospital, well, they have to pay for their meals themselves, because the logic goes, that they would have to eat anyway. So, I can assure you, this will have a long-term affect on the morale of the Armed Forces.

Now, Iran, which is part of this region, when Condoleezza Rice was on her "charm offensive" tour to Europe and the United States, she basically said that the United States government, at this point, does not exclude a diplomatic solution, and there's no military strike planned "as of now". And then she was smiling, with her charming smile. And actually, those of you who have been watching TV, it really reminded me of the Addams Family "charm" [general laughter], and otherwise, the smile of the bull terrier snarlingyou know, whenever I see Condoleezza Rice smiling, I'm getting a little bit worried. And, if you look at the content of this charm offensive, well, everybody in the whole world realized and noticed, and wrote and spoke about, that these are exactly the same formulations as before the Iraq War.

Now, as I said, the European Union says, "We can solve this problem by diplomatic means." They are negotiating in Geneva; they are making progress, that Iran is accepting an inspection regime. And Chancellor SchroeoËeder emphatically said that the European Union wants the United States to be an active partner in this negotiation, and help to bring a peaceful solution about.

But, what is the problem? Condoleezza Rice, in her opening remarks, said, there are these "outposts of tyranny," and then she named, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus (and I probably forgot a couple of countries). Now, that means that this is the list for immediate regime change, and basically, Bush in his Inauguration speech, which you all probably still have a chilling memory of, said that the aim of American foreign policy in the second Bush Administration, that is the "ultimate goal of ending tyranny" in the entire world, and to light "a fire in the minds of man." Which is really a very eerie reminder of Dostoevsky's writings, and basically a very Satanic kind of thing.

Now, when she said that concerning Iran, and this was reiterated by President Bush, President Khatami of Iranwho is a moderate; who is not a militant, who is not an aggressive fundamentalistreacted extremely strongly. He said, "We do not seek war. But we will not tolerate an invasion, and if an aggressor attacks us, this will bring burning hell for them." And then hundreds of thousands of people were demonstrating in many places in Iran.

Now, the top military in Europe, with whom we are talking about these things, told us, that, as Seymour Hersh was revealing in his famous article in The New Yorker last month, the plan to attack Iran militarily is ready to go. Any moment, it could happen. The idea is not to repeat what happened with Iraq, namely a ground invasion, but to strike from a distance, and that some time between May and August, a determination will be made to launch such an attack.

Well, between May and August, is also the period, where top bankers are talking about, that this will be the coming breakdown of the financial system. The Financial Times on the 16th of this month, had a one-page article about this. And you should know that it's not the habit of the financial media to report about coming crashes of the system. Because, according to the free-market economy philosophy, you have to massage the market, you have to massage the figures, you have to appeal to the psychology of the speculators and stockholders, and if you say one bad word about the markets, then the market will punish you and collapse. Which is why Lyndon LaRouche is really the reason why this whole mess exists, because he keeps talking badly about the market. So, for the Financial Times to talk about the coming systemic collapse is really unusual: They say that when the hedge fund LTCM collapsed in September '98, this was somehow remedied, and then people said, "Maybe we can be safe now." But, there are dozens and dozens of new LTCMs, new hedge funds, which could collapse, and the most likely time when this is going to happen, is when Alan Greenspan will leave office this summer, just in time to get out of the mess he uniquely had created.

Now, if you take these two things together, and I will elaborate the picture even more, we are heading in the very short termand I'm talking about three-month, four-month, five-month period, a countdown of civilization: Where we are looking at the coincidence of the collapse of the financial system, and the strategic picture going haywire. And I'm not saying that this is a crystal ball, that this will happen. But, I'm saying it, to motivate you to move as quickly and as powerfully as you can, to defeat the Social Security privatization: Because, if we don't contain this administration, turn it into a lame-duck administration, the world will go up in flames. And this is not a joke.

So therefore, what is really important, is that we increase our efforts to mobilize the Democratic Party, to mobilize the healthy parts of the Republican Party, to mobilize the trade union movementall the organizations, which have a sense that America must be saved between now and then. And therefore, given the fact that the Presidential campaign, in any case, did not have a clear-cut result, as was demonstrated by Senator Boxer and the Congresswoman from Ohio [Stephanie Tubbs-Jones] on Jan. 6, we have to continue the Presidential campaign, as if your life depends on it, because, unfortunately, it absolutely does.

The Attack on Russia

Now, let me go through the rest of the picture. Now, as I mentioned, for Russia, the economic cooperation with Iran is absolutely vital, and they have said they will expand this economic and nuclear cooperation, and they will not allow that this thing will be attacked. And you can be absolutely sure, if there is a strike against Iran, it would absolutely be insane to assume that there will not be a Russian reaction.

Why am I so certain of that? What is the situation in Russia? Well, we have been talking with top Russian people in the military, in the science field, academicsa good selection of those were at the Berlin seminar we had on Jan. 12 and 13 and there is no question in the minds of the top military, scientific and political leadership in Russia, that the issue is not Iraq; the issue is not Iran, and not Syria. But that, what is really at stake is the territorial integrity of Russia as one country, and that there are destabilizations afoot to split Russia into many parts.

The people in Russia know that they are the real target, as well as then China and India. And basically, when the terrorist attack against the school in Beslan occurred last fall, Putin, himself, and many security officials had said, that they know name and serial number of those who were in contact with the terrorists in Chechnya and elsewhere, that these were the same people who trained al-Qaeda and the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1970s for the fight against the Soviet Union, and that they know who these people are. Now, who are these people? It was Brzezinski, it's the circles of Samuel Huntington, and Bernard Lewis.

And, for the Russians, to have a school attackedI mean, this is not just "a terrorist attack": The Russians are a people who love their children extremely much. I know other people do toobut in Russia it is a very big thing, and if you convey to the population the feeling that the President and the government can not even protect the children, this has a very, very deep impact. And therefore, if any one more such event like Beslan should occur, I'm absolutely certain that the Russians would react militarily.

Now, the Russians have the absolute feeling of encirclement: NATO and the European Union expansion, they regard as an encirclement of Russia. American troops are now in Georgia, in Central Asiaand it does not stop there: Because, there is regime change on the agenda, not only for Russia itself, but for all CIS countries, including a full-fledged destabilization of Russia.

At the Berlin seminar, we got an inside view from Russians talking about that. Which then was confirmed by the executive chairman of the CIS countries, Rushailo, who spoke on Jan. 25 in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where he said, the regime-change scenario like in Georgia in December 2003 and Ukraine in December 2004, may unfold in every single CIS member-country and beyond.

Then, the new President of Georgia, Saakashvili, and the new President of Ukraine, Yushchenko, together agreed for a so-called "Carpathian Declaration," saying that the changes in their countries represent the beginning of a new wave of European liberalization and democracy on the European continent; and that this spark of revolution will be carried to all countries, including the former Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakstan, and so forth. The new Prime Minister of Ukraine, Tymoshenko, said that they will export the peaceful "orange Ukrainian revolution" wherever possible. To which the Defense Minister of Russia Sergei Ivanov answered, Russia would sharply react to the idea of exporting such revolutions to countries of the CIS, no matter in what colors these revolutions may be draped.

So, the same apparatus from the West, who destabilized Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, which essentially is foreign instructors who have an enormous amount of money, and they basically work, among other institutions, through the Free Congress Foundation (FCF), under the direction of Paul Weyrich, they control the so-called "Pora!" ("High Time!") youth movement in Kiev, which supposedly was designed by a certain Prof. Gene Sharp, from the Albert Einstein Institute at Harvard, where now the new professor is, of all people, Larry Summers. And this Professor Sharp, in 1973, wrote a book The Politics of Non-Violent Action. And what these people promote, it's actually a parody of the Mahatma Gandhi peace movement of India. And one can be 100% certain that if Mahatma Gandhi would now see this, he would turn in his grave in total disgust: Because, what these people are doing, is to cause regime change in all of these countries in order to subjugate all of these countries under the Anglo-American imperial rule.

Now, another institute is Freedom House. And basically what they are aiming at, is the split of Ukraine. Now, if you look at the new government of Ukraine, it's completely pro-NATO, pro-Western. Prime Minister Tymoshenko, who's not a Jeanne d'Arc at allshe actually criminally indicted in Russia for fraud and bribing government officials; she learned Ukrainian only, I think, in 1999. And then, you have Borys Tarasyuk, the Foreign Minister, who is famous to push the quickest integration into NATO. He is in favor of withdrawing Ukraine from the single economic space with Russia. He is for a limitation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. He is for the quickest withdrawal of that fleet, violating therefore an agreement which exists allowing this fleet to be there until at least 2017. His argument is that the Russian Navy is polluting Ukrainian water, and that marine units are deployed to Chechnya without agreement from Ukraine. Then, you have Chervonenko, the Transport Minister, who has dual citizenship, with an Israeli passport, in addition to his Ukrainian passport.

Now, this is playing with fire. When [U.S. Senator John] McCain, at the Wehrkunde annual military meeting in Munich, said the "orange revolution" is a "new dawn," that it started with the "rose revolution" in Georgia, in the Balkans, that freedom and democracy in Belarus must end the dictatorship there, too, and that Russia under Putin is moving backwardthis man is playing with fire.

And the people in Russia are completely terrified.

So, that's the situation of Russia. But then, let's look at East Asia: On Feb. 10, the government of North Korea announced that they have nuclear weapons, and this sent shock waves around internationallynot that this is so new as such, but you can be pretty sure, that North Korea does have plutonium weapons. But, why do they make such an announcement now? Well, first of all, it is a reaction to the re-election of the Bush Administration, and when Rice said that the U.S. government is not planning to attack Iran militarily "right now""right now," which doesn't mean "not later"and she said that North Korea is an "outpost of tyranny," so the North Koreans had only one conclusion: that they are next. And they look at Saddam Hussein, and they say, he did cooperate with the UN inspections, and what did it get him?

So then, the fact that Cheney called upon the South Korea foreign minister, recently, to halt South Korean annual fertilizer aid to North Korea, and North Korea does not have its own fertilizer plants and therefore there will be no harvest in North Korea, in an already-starving population! Then, on top of that, on Feb. 1, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that they have proved that North Korea has weapons-grade uranium, because they got a container, a barrel, from Libya, and there were traces of such weapons-grade uranium, which means basically the "yellowcake story" for North Korea has already been delivered.

Now, all of this is not true: Because we should remember, that already in March 2003, Dr. Jonathan Pollack, the head of the Strategic Research Department at the U.S. Naval War College, said this is a hoax. And he wrote a lengthy article in the Naval War College Review, and then gave interviews to EIR which were republished in South Korea many times, saying that the North Koreans do not have the technological capability to produce nuclear weapons based on uranium. And then, Siegfried Hecker, the ex-head of the nuclear weapons department at Los Alamos, toured North Korea, and addressed hearings in Congress where he said: Well, it's very simple. If you have a lump of steel, that doesn't mean you are able to produce a car. There are many technological steps, which you need in between. So, basically, there is a huge gap to the nuclear weapons-grade uranium, but basically, they probably do have plutonium bombs, which are, in a certain sense, more raw, and more clumsy.

So, what is behind this announcement on Feb. 10, that they do have nuclear weapons, is to simply say, "Look, if you cooperate, you get the Saddam Hussein treatment. So therefore, we tell the world, we do have nuclear weapons, and if you attack us, we will take Seoul and Tokyo with us."

Now, this is all absolutely dangerous stuff. Because, the problem in both Japan and Seoul are asking themselves, "How certain is the U.S. nuclear umbrella?" When North Korea threatens to thrown nuclear bombs on Seoul or Tokyo, does the nuclear umbrella supports us? Well, the treaty obligation obliges them to side with the United States. But, that really goes against their fundamental security interest, which obviously is to stay alive. How do we prevent Seoul and Tokyo from being destroyed? Is the alliance with the United States really not the biggest danger?

Now, there are all kinds of rumblings going on. Dr. John Nathan of the University of California Santa Barbara recently was in Washington making a speech in front of the Carnegie Endowment, talking about the unraveling of U.S.-Japanese relationship. And he said, every Japanese over 20 (or the majority of them who are not on dope), view the U.S. with growing antagonism, and they have a growing affinity with Asia.

So then, also, the South Korean Foreign Ministry U.S. expert, Dr. Kim Sung Han [ph] went around in the United States making speeches, saying that the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance is in transformation, and must change, or it will not last.

Now, just today, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice are meeting with their Japanese counterparts, and according to pre-reporting in the Washington Post and elsewhere, they will announce a statement, that from now on, the United States and Japan will regard Taiwan as their joint security interest. Now, if you know what Taiwan means for China, for the mainlandagain, which regards Taiwan as an absolute integral part of the mainland and not as a separate countrythis is playing with fire! This is absolutelyI mean, I don't what the Chinese will do. But they could just withdraw their $500-600 billion U.S. dollar reserves, and just say, "this is it." And from the standpoint of maintaining the financial system, the fact that the Chinese did remain patient in not dropping the dollar support, was the only thing which prevented the collapse of the financial system!

So, these people are definitely playing with fire.

The crisis with Europe

Obviously, what happens right now in Europe is not on the same level of immediate crisis, but it is reflecting this strategic situation. Now, Schröder at the Wehrkunde speech in Munich (which was read by [Defense Minister Peter] Struck, because he was ill with the flu), demanded a reform of NATO, because the NATO structure would not reflect the changes of the last 15 years any more, and therefore should not remain the prime avenue of the transatlantic relation, because this would create unnecessary tensions. And that there are many conflicts, which in any case can not be solved with military means: like hunger, underdevelopmentwhich also is a cause for terrorism, he saysand that the Iran question must be solved diplomatically; the U.S. must be part of that; but that solution for Iran, must take into account the interests of Iranian security interest. Which caused a complete hysterical reaction, but it definitely was a baby-step in the right direction.

Rumsfeld, who was at the same conference, immediately went berserk, and said, "No! The NATO structure is just fine." And then, tomorrow, President Bush will start his tour in Europe. He will go Brussels, Mainz, Erbenheim (where our office is, near Wiesbaden). They have sealed off 100 km of the Autobahn already; they have closed all streets, people are supposed to stay at home. They have made nets, so that where the convoy goes, people can not throw tomatoes. And then, there's a comment in the Wiesbadener Kurier today which compares this with when Kennedy visited the same region in '63, saying that the police were worried also that object would be thrown, but people were afraid too many roses and flowers would be thrownas compared to this today.

And then, it is announced that Bush will "tutor" Schröder about NATO, as if we were a pupil in school who is falling behind, and needs a special course. So, I can assure you, this will not find a big appreciation: Because, already former Chancellor [Helmut] Schmidt wrote in Die Zeit what he thinks about this "charm offensive" of Bush and Rice, saying, "Well, he will talk a lot about freedom and democracy. He obviously will not mention Abu Ghraib, and he will not talk about the preventive nuclear war doctrine from September 2002. So, we will receive him friendly, because this is what one does among civilized countries, but we are not vassals, and this is a question of our dignity."

And I know from many discussions we did have, this Bush trip will be subject to a reevaluation of the transatlantic relations: Because, for Europefor Germany in particular, but for all of Europethis whole policy creates a real strategic dilemma. Germany can not exist without the strategic partnership with Russia, China, and India. The German economy is collapsing: In reality, we have now 9 million unemployedthat is 3 million unemployed more than in 1933. And without exports to East Asia, Germany will just collapse. It is already collapsing. And the only chance Germany has, is long-term economic cooperation with East Asia. Now, if the United States, and therefore NATO, are in an adversary relationship with Russia, this touches the vital security interest of Germany, France, Italy, Europe, in the areas of politics, economics, security. And from the standpoint of Germany, Ukraine is not far away, like Iraq; Ukraine is just very close by, almost next door.

Now, if you look at this panorama of the world, and I only could touch upon the most dangerous hotspotsI could have added other, very severe crises in Africa and in Latin Americait is obvious that the present strategic system is disintegrating, and that we are at a point of complete discontinuity. And I want Claude to play "clip A"we have a Thirty Years' War, already. You remember this is footage which Lyn used in his famous "Storm Over Asia" election program, but this was a warning then by Lyn, but this is now happening. You have flames all over, you have actual war situations, and this is the fire which is burning in real terms, and not in the "minds of the people," but in actual countries.

So, I think if you look at this picture, when I'm saying that Lyn is absolutely right when he says the Thirty Years' War has already begun, and that we are looking at the potential of a global, asymmetric nuclear warfare: Because, if any more of these things happen, this will go completely out of control. And it would be completely foolish. You know, the problem is, I look at C-SPAN at some of the hearings when Rumsfeld and Rice were testifying, and some of the timid questioning by the Democratsand the mistake they make is, they take one crisis at a time! They say, "But things are not working out in Iraq." "Problems are here." "Things are not right with the Iran thing"but they don't look at it as a totality! And you have to absolutely look at this, as a world fire, as something where every top military command, in India, in Russia, in China, in Europe, they're looking at it as a totality, and they see an effort of a completely insane policy of regime change, or, if that doesn't help, if that doesn't function with normal means, go for war. And this is not going last forever.

This is much worse than the Thirty Years' War, because the Thirty Years' War was limited to Europe, to a part of Europe. But this is already engulfing the entire globe.

Now, sure, when Condi Rice says, that the United States will not allow any other country to come close to the power of the United States, well, China sooner or laterprobably in the year 2020, '25will just be a much bigger and more large country, just by the growth of its population. India is already over a billion! So, obviously, the United States has to rethink this. Because, sure, the United States is the only remaining superpower. But what has this administration made out of it?

At the point when there was no adversary left, when the Soviet Union collapsed, there would have been the chance to make a peace order in the world, it would have been very easy: It would have been very easy to push through the policy of John Quincy Adams, to a community of principle, where the United States would have been welcomed to play a primus inter pares among perfectly sovereign nation-states, but otherwise devoted to the common aims of mankind. But, they had to decide to become a global empire, in the tradition of the Roman Empire. What a shame! And what a shame, that Bush has been re-elected a second time! Even if he was not really re-elected but by strange meansbut nevertheless half of the Americans did vote! Half of the people voting, did vote! This is a problem! You know, and I think, it is somethingI'm not saying it to blame you. I'm saying it to motivate you, to redouble your efforts to get rid of this, because it's going to bring down the whole world with it.

Now, I mean, you have to really understandand I'm speaking a little bit like everybody. I'm speaking mildly, because if you want to hear how people around the world are talking about the United States, they want the United States to collapse as quickly as possible. Because, it's stupid, and obviously this doesn't solve the problem, but, people are horrified!

If the world survives this, I can predict that there will be movies made, like Nazi movies, about Abu Ghraib; about the torture camps in foreign countries; about the Taft memorandum where basically the permission was given to kidnap people without legal advice, bring them to foreign countries, torture them! So, recently when I flew here, and had jet lag, I watched TV in the middle of the night, and I admit that I did watch a movie "Rambo." Which shows you I had really severe suffering from jet lagbut. It actually starts off, with a Vietnam Special Forces guy, this guy Rambo, who was described by his Pentagon handler as "the best." And he had, then, a run-in with the local sheriff, and the sheriff was a little red-neck, evil guy, who then basically tortured him, with a hose and other means, in the shower, using the hose as a way to hurt him and so forth. And then Rambo has these flashbacks from Vietnam, and flips out, and does his act.

But, there is no differencethat's what happened in Abu Ghraib! That's why Abu Ghraib was possible, making prisoners perform sexual acts, which is the utmost violation in the Islamic world. Well, if you look at some of the Nazi movies, like a famous movie, "The Pianist," where the Nazis are deporting the Jews to the concentration camp, and then they make the Jews dance in the street for their entertainmentit's the same thing!

What is at stake is the image of man behind that!

And, then the Nazis say, "Oh, that's our way to celebrate New Years." And then, you have similar things going on in Abu Ghraib.

So, this has to be remedied. This has to be absolutely changed. The world is already sitting on a powderkeg, and the name of this powderkeg is World War III. The fuse has already been lit, at five, six, seven, eight points. And this, without any question, is the stuff world wars are made of.

Now, how do we deal with that? How do we approach that? And how do we find a way out of that? Now, Lyn has said, and written many times, that we have to look at history like tragedy. And we have to learn from Classical tragedy, how to uplift ourselves, how to uplift the population in order to find a way out.

Now, in this tragedy, you're not looking at "a stage"but you, wewe are the leading characters of the play. And we can learn from historical Classical dramas, from Shakespeare, from Schiller, and let the drama of these great tragedians teach us historical lessons.

Schiller and the Thirty Years War

Now, the problem we face today can be understood best from that point of view. And therefore, I want to talk a little bit about my favorite poet, Schiller , who was a first-class historian, and compare his historical writings with his dramas, at least one drama, as the most efficient way to get to the point. This is something modern historians completely fail to grasp. And if they talk about Schiller as an historian at all, they say, "Well, he was not really an historian, because." But, actually, Schiller was the best historian: He had a better understanding of history, than almost all so-called professional historians, because he grasped the ideas, the real dynamic of history.

Now, he tackled the problem of European history and European civilization, starting with his description of "The Laws of Lycurgus and Solon," where he describes the republican model of the wise lawgiver, Solon of Athens, who has created a state, where the aim of the state is the progression of the peoplethe progress, the perfection of the population. Versus the evil system of Lycurgus of Sparta, which is run by a small, oligarchical elite, where, according to Schiller, everything looks perfect in the beginning, but then, you see that this very well-organized state is actually based on slavery, on a system of helots, where parts of the population can be thrown away as human cattle, and can be killed. And from time to time, when the helots, which is the name for the slaves in Sparta, get too many and become too dangerous to the system, the youth have a free-shootingthey can go out and shoot these people.

Now, Schiller portrays this, that you can learn from this whenever the humanist cause makes progress, and when it turns into the opposite, such as Lycurgus. And the entirety of European history, has been the struggle between these two tendencies. And it helps you to see turning points, when mankind moves upward, and when it moves downward to degenerate. And how a continuation of failed systems leads to doom, because the society adheres to false principles.

As I said, and I think if you look at the map of the present hotspots that there is no doubt about it, that we are, already, in a global, new Thirty Years' War.

Now therefore, let's take a look at the old Thirty Years' War, which lasted from 1618 to 1648: which, as I said, was limited to Europe at that point, and therefore only devastated parts of the world. Let's take a look at how Schiller deals with this issue of the Thirty Years' War. Now Schiller, in the spring of 1786, found a book about the Peace of Westphalia, and according to his own testimony, this triggered his acute interest to study deeply and thoroughly real history. This he wrote in a letter to his friend Koerner, on April 15, '86.

In the beginning of this book, there is a lengthy essay about the character of Wallenstein, who was the general of the Imperial Army of the Habsburg Empire, and who was the opponent of the Swedish King Gustav Adolf. Three years later, Schiller undersigned a contract with his publisher, Goeschen, to write a comprehensive study of the history of the Thirty Years' War, on which Schiller worked, then, for three years, until 1793. And soon, it was clear for him, that he not only was writing history, trying to comprehend historical lessons, but that he had found a really, absolutely prime topic for a Classical drama. Because Shakespeare, Schiller, and others are always looking, "What is a good subject to write a drama?" because you need a good topic, and it's not so easy to find such.

So, after extensive studies, which took him, among others when he went to Carlsbad, which was a famous health spa, he had extensive discussions with Austrian military officers, to study warfare. He visited Eger, which was the main place where Wallenstein's camp stayed. So, Schiller really worked deeply to familiarize himself with the different aspects of this war.

Now, let's take a look at the period of the Thirty Years' War, which is relevant for our purpose here. In the Third Book of the Thirty Years' War, Schiller describes how Gustav Adolf is making victory after victory in the north of Germany. Wallenstein, at this point, is sitting in Prague, because he has been ousted from the command of the Imperial Army by Emperor Ferdinand, due to an intrigue which involved the Spanish court, which involved the Duke of Bavaria; and therefore, Wallenstein is not completely unsatisfied with the progress of Gustav Adolf. And he even puts out feelers, trying to make friendship with him, and invites him to make a military alliance. He proposes to Gustav Adolf to link 15,000 of his troops with his own troops which Wallenstein doesn't have yet, but he intends to recruit in Bohemia and Maeren, and then attack together and conquer Vienna, and chase the Emperor out, and chase him into Italy.

Now, Gustav Adolf hesitates. This sounds all too daring to him, like a chimera, he can not believe in; so he basically wastes the only chance to end the war quickly. Wallenstein is very hurt in his pride, and he never forgave Gustav Adolf for this low estimate of his proposal.

So, what does Wallenstein do? He needs an army to get rid of the Habsburg Empire. He can not recruit one in secrecy, because this would cause the maximum suspicion at the court in Vienna. Also, he can not tell the soldiers what his real plans are, because if he tells them to join his, Wallenstein's army, to topple the Habsburg Empire, in that period, it would have been regarded as high treason, and people would not have joined. So therefore, Wallenstein has to find a way, how he could convince the Emperor, to officially give him unlimited power over such an army. But Wallenstein is a proud person, who does not want to beg. So therefore, he's sitting there waiting, until the threat from the Swedish army is so bad, that the Emperor has to make the decision, against the opposition from Bavaria and Spain, to give him the control over the army.

Now, Wallenstein, according to Schiller, is indirectly secretly supporting the advances of Gustav Adolf, probably also furthering the attacks of the Saxonians on Bohemia, and the progress of Gustav Adolf along the Rhine. Can you show the map of the Thirty Years' War? At the same time, Wallenstein is having his supporters in Vienna complain badly, that it is only the demotion and ouster of Wallenstein which is the cause for the defeat.

Now, Wallenstein, at that point, was an extremely rich man. He had gigantic respect; the speed with which he six years earlier, had recruited an army of 40,000 people, the small price it had cost at that time, his rapid victoriesso when the crisis became big enough, the Emperor put his feelers out, to see what Wallenstein's state of mind would be. At that point, Wallenstein played very hard to get. He said, "I'm not interestedI'm interested in retirement." But, privately, he was triumphant, because the time for revenge had come. Vienna wanted to curb his power, by putting the King of Hungary at his side, which Wallenstein absolutely refused. And then, eventually, after Gustav Adolf advanced even further, he agreed to put together an army, but only to take command for three months, to arm the troops, but then not to lead it beyond that.

He was convinced that the army would immediately disintegrate once he was not the commander, and he used the army only as the bait. Gustav Adolf, at that point, still did not believe this whole thing was for real. But, when Wallenstein had put the army together, he just mobilized what his networks were, he had been building on for years before. His fame attracted masses of soldiers, the size of the promised pay, the quality of the food; then Wallenstein paid 200,000 gold thaler from his own money, to speed up the armament, and he instigated other rulers to spend their own money to pay the troops.

Soon he had an army of 40,000, which was attracted by the glory of Wallenstein's name, his gold, his genius, and at that point, Wallenstein threatened to resign. The danger of Gustav Adolf grew, but Wallenstein wanted guarantees that he would not be demoted again, and would have unrestrained control, the sole power to punish and to reward the army, and, basically demanded that the Emperor would be robbed of all control of the army. So, essentially what this was, was a plan for mutiny.

At that point, he also demanded that all Austrian provinces be open for his retreat, in an emergency, which was essentially the idea to keep the Emperor prisoner in his own empire, in case of such an emergency. But Ferdinand needed Wallenstein very badly, because Gustav Adolf was advancing, so he agreed to all of these demands.

Wallenstein was in no hurry, and let the Emperor and the Elector of Regensburg wait and worry. But eventually, it came to the unification of the Imperial and Bavarian troops at Eger, and Wallenstein commanded, at that point, 60,000 troops.

Now, Gustav Adolf requested the support of the Saxonian troops, and when he realized Wallenstein's army was marching towards him, he saw only one chance to move into Nuremberg. And even if this meant the danger of encirclement by Wallenstein, it seemed to him to be better to be fortified in a position in Nuremberg, and prepare for the encirclement than to just have an open battle. Wallenstein, at that point, said, "In four days, it will be decided who is the ruler of the world, Gustav Adolf or I." Wallenstein immediately started the siege of Nuremberg, waiting for hunger and epidemicsand this was not so easy, because Nuremberg was not that big a city at that point, and they had tremendous difficulty foraging, getting food and other supplies, and often the resupplies fell into the hands of the Swedes.

On both sides, very soon, infectious diseases happened, bad food caused poisoning; soon Duke Wilhelm von Weimar came to the aid of Gustav Adolf. Four Saxonian regiments and troops from the Rhine area joined, so that they were, altogether, 50,000 troops, 6,000 cannon, 4,000 wagons. Gustav Adolf on the other side, had 70,000, and the militia from Nuremberg, which was 30,000 citizens for an emergency. Wallenstein was reinforced from Bavaria, and soon, in the Wallenstein camp, there were 120,000 soldiers, 50,000 horses, 15,000 women, and 15,000 servants. Because, at that time, it was the habit that the soldiers would have their families with them in such a battle.

But soon such an enormous amount of people could not be maintained, and hunger erupted. A certain number of the horses starved to death; epidemics were spreading. At that point, Gustav Adolf considered an attack, which Wallenstein answered from a distance from his fortifications, and it was Wallenstein's intent to run Gustav Adolf down, through attrition. Wallenstein was sitting there, calmly, as Schiller writes, "like a god."

He had, around his camp, 100 cannons, and 500 soldiers of Gustav Adolf's army went to certain death; heavy cavalry followed, and then German troops, Finnish troops, one regiment after the other went into certain death.

Soon, a thousand mutilated corpses were lying on the ground. Heavy fighting on the left wing of the Swedes started; both sides had severe casualties. Wallenstein's horse was shot from under him. Two thousand were dead on Gustav Adolf's side. Fourteen more days and the armies stayed opposite to each other; hunger pain increased, soldiers dissipated, the peasants became their victims. Need dissolved order, violence spread, and a despicable decay of military discipline occurred.

Nuremberg for weeks had to feed large crowds of people, and after 11 weeks it came to an end, because there was absolutely no food left, and Gustav Adolf, who had the larger army, because of that, withdrew first. Nuremberg had lost 10,000 inhabitants; Gustav Adolf, 20,000 through war and epidemics; and all villages and fields were destroyed. The peasants were dying on the roadsides. There was the smell of mold, decaying corpses, and long after the retreat, misery and need remained. Gustav Adolf retreated. Wallenstein let him go, and soon after that, left himself, burning down the camp.

The siege of Nuremberg alone had left 50,000 people dead, without bringing the war one inch closer to end. Austria was saved for the short term, but nothing was decided.

So, Wallenstein went back to his plan to separate the Saxonians from the Swedes. The Saxonian army had, in the meantime, attacked Silesia, so no defense was left and Saxony was open for attack from all sides. Wallenstein left Bavaria for Gustav Adolf to loot, hoping that he would not disturb him in Saxony, and marched toward the Thuringian woods. General Holk did the advance, and destroyed the defenseless province with fire and with sword. Generals Gallas and Pappenheim followed, making things worsedestroying churches, burning down villages, destroying the harvest, robbing families, murdering people, and the army turned into barbarians, only to advance for the even bigger misery caused by Wallenstein's army which followed immediately afterwards.

At that point, Gustav Adolf decided to followed Wallenstein, and the population from the nearby areas gathered to see him, celebrating him as the savior, falling on their knees to kiss him, and touch his clothes, because they looked at him like a god. The adoration was so overwhelming, that Gustav Adolf expressed that he feared vengeance from Heaven for such idolization.

So, at that point, Wallenstein had to win against Gustav Adolf, or lose his reputation. So, near Naumburg, Gustav Adolf started another fortification, and Wallenstein sent the larger part of his troops to Cologne, which had been attacked by the Dutch troops under the leadership of his General Pappenheim. As soon as Gustav Adolf heard that, he left his camp to attack the weakened army of Wallenstein, having 20,000 against 12,000 troops. Wallenstein hoped that Pappenheim would return quickly. At Luetzen, it came to an open battle, man against man. Gustav Adolf was in the battlefield at the left side; and at one point, he was shot in the arm, and a second shot killed him, and that news actually invigorated the Swedes to fight even harder.

The minute Wallenstein had almost lost, Pappenheim returned, and the battle started all over, in a murderous fight. Nine thousand people were dead. Many more wounded. The whole plain was covered with dead, wounded, and dying people. The Swedish victory was a sad one, because their King Gustav Adolf was dead.

And when it was clear that the Emperor of Austria wanted to demote Wallenstein a second time, Wallenstein activated his plan for a revolt. In the year 1634, he called the commanders of the army to Pilsen. The demand from Vienna at that point, was not to put up the army for winter in Austria, because putting up the army was always a big drain on the country, and to reconquer Regensburg, still during the winter, which also was a big difficulty.

So, this was a large enough issue, for Wallenstein to call together the entire war council, and secretly, he also invited the Swedes and the Saxons. But, the most important three commanders were missing.

Now, what Wallenstein was planning here, was not a small thing: Because he wanted to convince the army and the nobility for a revolt. But Wallenstein was blinding himself. He didn't see the danger which was hanging over his head. Wallenstein was sure that the army, which was very bitter against the Emperor, would follow his orders as usual. And he thought that it was his personal authority, and not the authority of his position, which caused this obedience from the troops.

Then, through an intrigue, he wanted to get the commanders to sign the paper of loyalty to Wallenstein, which had a clause in itas long as Wallenstein deploys the army in the service of the Emperor, they should all be loyal to Wallenstein. Now, nobody had reservations to sign such an innocent statement. And they served a gigantic meal, asking the commanders to sign afterward, giving them a lot of wine; and then, when they gave the same paper after the meal, that particular clause was missing. But, then the betrayal became known, and a big uproar occurred.

Wallenstein at that point was completely blind that the two most important generals, Gallas and Piccolomini, were there only as spies for the court at Vienna. And Schiller says, Wallenstein's pride was the daughter of his bride. At that point, Wallenstein planned to go to Prague, to collect the troops there, and to attack Vienna from there. He was left basically alone, but he didn't give up his plan. And Schiller writes, "But it is in such situations, where great character is demanded. Betrayed in all expectations, he did not give up any of his designs. He gives nothing as lost, because he still has himself. But he reveals himself to the wrong person, the wrong confidant, which then speeds up the plans to murder him."

So, for Schiller's account of the Thirty Years' War, he writes this history, but then, you look at what he does with this historical material.

Now, in the beginning of his historical writings, he portrays Wallenstein as a limitlessly ambitious man, recklessly violent, only occupied since his demotion with the total revenge against the Emperor, and he wants to use the army to destroy the Habsburg Empire and take power himself. (Can you please put up the picture of Wallenstein?) But, then, at the end of the Fourth Book, Schiller makes a very interesting change, and says, "So, Wallenstein ended his life, at the age of 50 years, a life full of deeds which was extraordinary, elevated through ambition, toppled by the desire for fame. But, despite all his faults, he was great, and he was to be admired. He would have been unmatched, if he would have kept in proportion. He had all the virtues of a leaderwisdom, justice, firmness, and couragein a colossal way. But, he was lacking the gentle virtue of man, which decorates heroes, and which causes the leader to be loved."

And then, at the end of Book Four, Schiller surprisingly touches upon another level of this history. He writes, "His bright mind elevated Wallenstein above religious prejudices of his century. And the Jesuits never forgave him, that he had seen through their system. It was the intrigue of the monks, which caused him to lose the command the first time in Regensburg, and to lose his life in Eger. And it was through the monks that he lost something that was even more important than both: Namely, to lose his honest name. For the sake of justice, one has to admit that the story of this extraordinary man has not been transmitted faithfully, that his treason is not proven, and in his publicly proven deeds is none which would have been not based on innocent motives. Many of the steps he was criticized for the most, any proof his serious desire to establish peace, and others, are accused by the justified mistrust against the Emperor, and the excusable effect to emphasize his own role. None of his deeds allows us to think that treason on his part is proven. He did not fall because he was a rebel, but he was a rebel because he was falling. It is a misfortune for the living to have made the victorious party an enemy, and it is a misfortune for the dead, that this enemy outlived him and wrote his history."

Now, this is very, very interesting, because, as Schiller was working through the historical materialand you have to appreciate that the actual sources were not what you have to day, where you can go to the Library of Congress and you have everything you can possibly wishbut he had only a few records; but, eventually Schiller, as always, came to the real dynamic behind this period of history.

From these lines, it is clear that Schiller absolutely was on the track of the real historical issues. The real issue was not loyalty to the Habsburg Empire. But the real issue was how to end the Thirty Years' War, how to end the religious war. And Schiller, who probably would have written a history of the Peace of Westphalia if he would not have died prematurely of his diseases, called the Peace of Westphalia the "greatest achievement of statecraft."

The Wallenstein Drama

But, it was only through the drama Schiller wrote, based on this historical material, for which the actual historical record was just relatively limited, that he found with scientific precision what was the actual story of this period of history. In the famous Wallenstein Trilogy, which was the first Classical drama in GermanI mean, Schiller wrote the youthful dramas up to the Don Carlos, but the real, first Classical drama was the Wallenstein Trilogy about the Thirty Years' War. I'm saying it was the first real Classical drama, because it fulfilled the highest standard of Schiller's and Goethe's own aesthetical conceptions of waht Classical art must be based on. And it focussed on this period of the Thirty Years' War which I just told you about.

Now, the Trilogy starts first with Wallenstein's Camp, and this alone is a masterful portrayal. It probably describes the Wallenstein camp near Nuremberg, during the siege. And what you see is how, through the viewpoint of the different soldiers of the army in the camp, the panorama of the camp during the war, is painted from the view of the simple soldiers.

Then, the second part of the Trilogy, called The Piccolomini, has the story of the plan of Wallenstein to turn the army against the Emperor, and the counter-intrigues from the court of Vienna, for which Octavio Piccolomini, after whom this second part is called, is the chief agent, and whom Wallenstein unfortunately trusts completely. And Schiller said, "Only the arrogance of pride was the cause of Wallenstein's blindness not to see through."

Now, while Schiller was working on the Wallenstein play, which was interrupted many times, because he had many, many severe intestinal and other diseasesas a matter of fact, when he died at the age of 45, and an autopsy was made, people were surprised how long this man could have lived, because his entire internal organs had completely dissolved. And he had a gigantic domination of willpower over his weak body. So, in this whole period Schiller was working, which was six years, he also worked on his aesthetical writings. And he had the problem that Wallenstein was a generalhe was in the middle of a war, he was not exactly a sympathetic person, at least at first view; and the question was, how to make this very ambiguous figure, who was not really great, who had essentially no noble motives, but a general in the middle of battleshow to get the audience to feel with Wallenstein, and to make him an understandable and even sympathetic hero. Which, according to Schiller, is necessary, because, as he develops in his theoretical writings "The Theater as a Moral Institution," Classical theater must elevate the population.

When the ordinary people go to the theater, and they see a king, or a general, or an emperor, or anybody on the stage, they have to be uplifted to identify with the large issues of mankind, and they have to put themselves in the shoes of the hero on the stage, what would they do, if, on their action, the fate of their people for centuries and generations to come, would depend? Now, that requires, that the audience, when they look at the hero on the stage, identifiesand you can not identify with somebody whom you detest.

So, Schiller had the problem, how to use this historical material, to cause people to somehow have a different identification with Wallenstein. And in the very beautiful prologue, he writes, "Wallenstein, his character is torn in different directions, by love and hatred of the different parties. But, through art, I will present him in front of your eyes, and bring him closer to your hearts."

The way Schiller does that, is, he adds two figures which were not reported in real history, but do exist in the play. These figures are Max, the son of Octavio Piccolomini, and Thekla, the daughter of Wallenstein. They are, what Schiller calls, the "children of the house," which is close to his ideal of the "beautiful soul."

Now, Schiller had, throughout his life, again and again, came back to what he called "the philosophy of childhood." Which was the idea that children and youth are in a condition of innocence, that they are not yet crippled by the challenges of adult life. They are pure and integral. And that people later get hurt and get damaged, and they become crippled. But that always, they have the chance to revive and to create anew their totality of their human personality through aesthetical education.

So, Schiller uses this means, to have two beautiful souls, which are not yet crippled by the Thirty Years' War, the children of the two main figuresOctavio and Wallensteinwho represent this idea of the beautiful humanity. And it is them, alone, through which he portrays what is the ideal of Wallenstein in the Peace of Westphalia. Max, in the play, is the counterpart of Wallenstein, and he represents Wallenstein's own noble youth, which he sees personified in Max. And after Max dies in the battle, Wallenstein exclaims, "He was standing beside me, like my own youth. He painted reality for me, as a vision, as a dream." And, Wallenstein, in the entire plan, he neveraccording to Schillerreally says, what is his aim for trying to topple the Habsburg Empire, but then, in the dialogue between Max and Octavio and another character called, Questenberg, Max actually describes why he is so absolutely determined to be on the side of Wallenstein. And I want Will to read that part:

Max: Soon will his dismal realm come to an end!
|O Blessed be the prince's earnest zeal,
He'll intertwine the olive branch i'th' laurel
And donate peace to a delighted world.
Then his great heart has nothing more to wish,
He has performed enough for his renown,
Can live now for himself and for his own.
To his estates he will retire. At Gitchin
He has a lovely seat, and Reichenberg
And Friedland Castle both lie happily
Up to the Riesenberge foothills stretch
The hunting ranges of his wooded lands.
With his great drive for glorious creation,
Can he then unrestrainedly, freely comply.
As prince he can encourage all the arts
And give protection to all worthy things
Can build, and plant and watch the stars above
Yes, if his daring power cannot rest,
then he may battle with the elements,
Divert a river, and blow up a rock
And clear an easy path for industry.
Our histories of war will then become
the stories told on lengthy winter nights

So, what Max portrays here, was Wallenstein's plan for the time when peace was established. And, as you can see, it is clearly the remnants of the idea of the Peace of Westphalia treaty: the idea to build infrastructure for reconstruction, to divert rivers, to reconstruct the torched earth.

Now, the third part of the Trilogy, is The Death of Wallenstein. Wallenstein gets killed, in an absolutely masterful way how Schiller describes this.

Now, in real history, the war as a result of this continued another 16 years, and it only ended, because at that point, it was clear that if the war would continue, nobody would be left alive. If you compare Schiller's historical writings about the Thirty Years' War and the Wallenstein Trilogy, something very interesting emerges: As I said, during the same period, Schiller worked on the history and the drama of the Thirty Years' War, he made extensive writings about the aesthetical laws of Classical art, the famous Aesthetical Letters, On Grace and Dignity; the Kallias Letters, the criticism of Burger's poems About NaiÃve and Sentimental Poetry. And in that, he said, that the great poet, the great artist, needs to idealize a subject, because otherwise, it's not worth to portray it.

Now, this word "idealizing" has been misunderstood a lot, by meaning "beautifying" "making it more nice," "idealizing it"; that's not what Schiller means, at all. It means to recognize the pure nature, the essence of the subject, to elevate it above the arbitrary, up to the general and necessary, and that is really the meaning of "idealizing," to find the true nature. Also, it means elevation to the level of the Sublime.

So, Schiller does not only want to evoke the spiritual power of the resistance through compassion in the audience, but he also wants to do it in the play, in the heroes: With the idea, that even if there is an external destruction, an inner reliability and growth of greatness has to be the response. He wants to create a moral independence from the laws of nature in the condition of the effect. In the Xenie, he writes, "The gigantic destiny, which elevates man while it may crush him physically."

In the same period, Schiller also studied the Greek tragedians, and also Shakespeare. And the motive was, all the time, how to heal the damaged person, because Schiller was fundamentally convinced that the people of his time had been crippled through the Enlightenment, through the Thirty Years' War, through the Seven Years' War, and how to heal and how to re-create the harmonious personality on a higher level.

In some of his unpublished works, he writes: "We are human beings, therefore we are subject to our destiny. We are under the compulsion of laws. It is important, therefore, to awaken a higher more vigorous power inside ourselves, and to train this power, so that we can re-create ourselves. Tragedy does not turn us into gods, because gods"and he means "gods" here in the sense of the Greek mythology"can not suffer. Tragedies turn us into heroic people, divine human beings. Or, if you want, suffering gods, which were called, Titans. Prometheus, the hero of one of the most beautiful tragedies, in a certain way, is the synonym of tragedy itself."

Now remember what Lyn wrote in the recent papers about the Promethean image of man. Prometheus, the story of the god who brought the power of fire to mankind, against the tyranny of Zeus, and for which he was then chained to the rock for eternity. This is metaphor for the very idea of the empowering man, of strengthening his cognitive ability, which is what separates man from the beast.

The real struggle of mankind to increase the spiritual side, the intellectual, cognitive side, is what this play is all about. So, in a way, what Schiller did with the Wallenstein material, he applied the Prometheus ideal onto the historical material he had: He idealized Wallenstein.

Now, the totally fascinating thing, is that Schiller created a Wallenstein image, which he could not have from the historical records as such. And which only much later, it was confirmed by other historians when new historical sources became available. The philosopher, Wilhelm Dilthey, noted that the epistemological significance of the Wallenstein play, consists in that it grasps the inner depths, the inner sensitivity of history. The historian Heinrich von Zirg [ph] wrote that Schiller anticipated what historical science could prove one and a half centuries later, precisely.

Schiller's Wallenstein, therefore, was the real Wallenstein, and the ideas he had were the prelude to what the Peace of Westphalia treaty became 16 years later. And it contains the very important idea for today, that peace must end and supersede war. Max, in a discussion with his father and Questenberg, says, "You portray him" (meaning Wallenstein) "as a rebel, and God knows what else, because he shows mercy with the Saxonians, because he seeks to build trust with the enemy, which is the only way how one can make peace. Because, if war does not stop, already during the war, where should peace come from?"

So, that must be the lesson for us today. "War must stop during the war," because the alternative is perpetual war. And, as Lyn said and wrote, especially in the five documents he wants everybody to study very thoroughly around this conference, "The Earth's Next 50 Years" and the "Dialogue of Civilizations" and three other papersthe world needs, today, more urgently than ever, a new Peace of Westphalia treaty.

A Peace of Westphalia Today

Now, what were the principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which was the result of four years of negotiations, under the leadership of Cardinal Mazarin (show the picture of Mazarin). The first principle is, all peace must be built on the interest of the other. Also, security interest of the other; economic, cultural interest of the other.

Now, this is extremely important today: Because, that is the only concept how we can get out this scenario for World War III which I talked about in the beginning. We have to go back to the ideals, which really underlay the Peace of Westphalia, where the influence of Nicolaus of Cusa was very clear. Nicolaus of Cusa, earlier, in the 15th Century, had developed the idea that "concordance in the macrocosm, can only exist if all microcosms develop to their maximum," and that it is the very self-interest of each microcosm to develop the maximum of the other microcosms. Which also applies for nations. It must be the absolute self-interest of every nation, to further the well-being of the other, as its own, most fundamental interest, and that only if that happens, peace is possible.

Now, the ideas of the Nicolaus of Cusa, were obviously the ideas of the American Revolution. If you think about John Quincy Adams, and his idea of a community of principle of perfectly sovereign nation-states, who are, however, united through common aims of mankind, then that is exactly what must be revived in America today. And I would just ask President Bush: Does he really want to go down in history as Nero? Would he rather not like to compare with John Quincy Adams? I don't know if he will hear me. Or, if it does any good. But it is an old question, who will be the greater President in history?

The number-two principle of the Peace of Westphalia, was, all crimes and injustices have to be forgiven, for the sake of peace, on both sides.

And the third, which was not an actual principle of the treaty, but it belonged to the whole thing, was, the state role in the reconstruction after the war.

And that is very obvious, why we need today a Franklin D. Roosevelt approach for the reconstruction of the torn areas of the war. It is why we need the proposal by Lyn to have a New Bretton Woods; a Eurasian Land-Bridge as the basis for a reconstruction of the world economy, which is based on the interest of the other: that, in the Eurasian Land-Bridge, each country must have the well-being of the other country as its own self-interest.

The Eurasian Land-Bridge is the modern version of the John Quincy Adams idea, the common interest of mankind. The only wayand that remains on the table, if people like or not, and that's a challenge to the Democratic Party and the sane Republicansthe only way how the fire in the Near East, in the Middle East, and the Gulf region can be extinguished, is through the beautiful plan of the Southwest Asia doctrine Lyn has developed, the LaRouche Doctrine, which basically says: There has to be an economic development of the entire region, from Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt. There has to be a gigantic economic development plan, as the higher incentive for all the warring parties to stop. And this has to be guaranteed by the power of the United States. And that is the only way.

Now, if you think this is utopian, you better kiss civilization goodbye. It is up to you, and up to us, to force these ideas on the table.

Now, Lyn has added to this whole idea, the very beautiful conception of a 50-year agreement among the nations of the world, to have guaranteed supply and the development of strategic raw materials. The alternatives are either, we have World War III over the grabbing of raw materials in Central Asia, in Siberia, in the Gulf region, in China, and other places; or, we go the way of Lyn's vision for the 21st Century.

Well: We have two choices. And America, predominantly, has to make this decisionand I'm calling upon you, and the Americans in general, to not have the world turn into barbarians, and turn the world into a global nuclear rubble-field, a Dark Age, where I have already a clear picture how it would look like, when the world's population has shrunk to half a billion. Warlords over a torched earth are the only ones who remain.

Let's have instead, a beautiful vision. Let's have reconstruction, and a new humanist Renaissance. And that has to start with the inner self-education of each of us, and the population at large. We will not come out of this crisis, through pragmatism. We will not solve this crisis, by giving excellent charts and bullet-points and power-points, to the population why Social Security privatization is good or badeven though you may have some arguments and publish the information. We have to do something much more essential: We have to heal the tortured image of man. We have to treat each other, again, as human beings, and not allow a world in which some people are treated as cattleand I can assure you, no human person would treat cattle the way people say "treated as cattle," because even that is not human.

We need to evoke the self-subsisting humanity in each human being. We have to catalyze the spark of divine creativity, the free principle in each person. People have to learn from great Classical art, and the Wallenstein play is a very good example, talking about one of the worst periods in history, namely the Thirty Years' War. We can not appeal to the popular taste and prejudices and make it simple, "so that the ordinary folks can understand it." True popularityand Schiller has written a lot about thatcan only occur by elevating everybody, even the last uneducated person, to the level of Classical thinking. And when the highest level of humanity has been reached, and each person can participate in it, then we are truly popular, because that is then the common taste.

So, it is up to you, up to us, to give America its soul back, to make it again the beautiful soul of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. And I'm convinced we can do it.

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.VISIT THESE OTHER PAGES: